大规模使用AB测试学习实验

Christopher Chudzicki, David E. Pritchard, Zhongzhou Chen
{"title":"大规模使用AB测试学习实验","authors":"Christopher Chudzicki, David E. Pritchard, Zhongzhou Chen","doi":"10.1145/2724660.2728703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We report the one of the first applications of treatment/control group learning experiments in MOOCs. We have compared the efficacy of deliberate practice-practicing a key procedure repetitively-with traditional practice on \"whole problems\". Evaluating the learning using traditional whole problems we find that traditional practice outperforms drag and drop, which in turn outperforms multiple choice. In addition, we measured the amount of learning that occurs during a pretest administered in a MOOC environment that transfers to the same question if placed on the posttest. We place a limit on the amount of such transfer, which suggests that this type of learning effect is very weak compared to the learning observed throughout the entire course.","PeriodicalId":20664,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning Experiments Using AB Testing at Scale\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Chudzicki, David E. Pritchard, Zhongzhou Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2724660.2728703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We report the one of the first applications of treatment/control group learning experiments in MOOCs. We have compared the efficacy of deliberate practice-practicing a key procedure repetitively-with traditional practice on \\\"whole problems\\\". Evaluating the learning using traditional whole problems we find that traditional practice outperforms drag and drop, which in turn outperforms multiple choice. In addition, we measured the amount of learning that occurs during a pretest administered in a MOOC environment that transfers to the same question if placed on the posttest. We place a limit on the amount of such transfer, which suggests that this type of learning effect is very weak compared to the learning observed throughout the entire course.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2728703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2728703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

我们报告了实验组/对照组学习实验在mooc中的第一个应用。我们比较了反复练习一个关键步骤的刻意练习与传统的“整体问题”练习的效果。用传统的整道题来评估学习,我们发现传统的拖放练习优于拖放练习,而拖放练习又优于选择题。此外,我们测量了在MOOC环境中进行的前测期间发生的学习量,如果将其转移到后测中,则会转移到相同的问题。我们对这种转移的数量进行了限制,这表明与整个课程中观察到的学习相比,这种类型的学习效果非常弱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Learning Experiments Using AB Testing at Scale
We report the one of the first applications of treatment/control group learning experiments in MOOCs. We have compared the efficacy of deliberate practice-practicing a key procedure repetitively-with traditional practice on "whole problems". Evaluating the learning using traditional whole problems we find that traditional practice outperforms drag and drop, which in turn outperforms multiple choice. In addition, we measured the amount of learning that occurs during a pretest administered in a MOOC environment that transfers to the same question if placed on the posttest. We place a limit on the amount of such transfer, which suggests that this type of learning effect is very weak compared to the learning observed throughout the entire course.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Learning is Not a Spectator Sport: Doing is Better than Watching for Learning from a MOOC Learnersourcing of Complex Assessments All It Takes Is One: Evidence for a Strategy for Seeding Large Scale Peer Learning Interactions Designing MOOCs as Interactive Places for Collaborative Learning Who You Are or What You Do: Comparing the Predictive Power of Demographics vs. Activity Patterns in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1